Quote Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
JaggedEdge, how do you account for atmospheric methane having risen 145% in the last century? Fossil fuel production is a documented cause of this, and the past century has seen a steady explosion in human fussil fuel consumption, but there couldn't be any kind of link, right?
I have never argued we are not the reason for the increase in CO2, methane, and other pollutants and compounds into our atmosphere. There simply is no evidence it affects our climate.

May I ask what motive institutions would have for fabricating such an uncomfortable problem that will be so expensive to remedy? The corporate giants don't exactly benefit from the idea that their practices are doing the earth great harm.
See above for Gores motivations. Others are in clean energy fields or own their own carbon credit companies. There are certainly people who want to benefit from the promotion of this pseudo-science. Most of these clean energy companies get government subsidies. They can actually loose money but continue to get paid.

JaggedEdge, you can scream "I AM RIGHT" to the rafters; doesn't make it so. This is far too complex an issue to simply be dismised...I also have perused the evidence and have found at least significant portions of it to be solid.
I have been begging for y'all to produce this evidence, until one of you actually does I will continue to assume it is nonexistent.

My point about a pre-emptive cleanse was that unless I grossly overestimate your cognitive faculties, you can't possibly believe that humans can continue their vicious rape of the earth and its natural resources without consequences cropping up sooner or later, even if they haven't already.
That is the strangest logic. If we have natural resources, why should we not take advantage of them? Yes, eventually oil will run out and we will adapt and switch to an alternative source.

I love "vicious rape of the earth" though. I love the graphic imagery you use to describe our mining and extracting natural resources.

The problem with your solution is that this debate isn't about mining minerals and deforestation. It is about global warming, and in particular CO2's effect on our climate. What we are talking about with your "cleanse" is the destruction of our modern way of earth in a drastic effort to prevent what could someday happen. Completely force people to unwillingly change because our climate fluctuates and isn't very stable. It is however reliable.


The Native Americans analogy is a seriously patchy one...
Fair enough, you didn't like that analogy. Let's try another one, this time in regards to our thinking we can help the environment.

[align=center]"ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES."
[align=left]Most people felt Smokey Bear was a positive thing. He promoted responsibility,being respectful to the environment and not starting so many forest fires. Surely our intervention in this matter could not have any negative effects. We're saving millions of animals; their homes and lives. Unfortunately, as it turns out, fires are essential to the natural balance. Since people started putting out their fires and saving the forest, the forest has been becoming overly dense with growth, a lot of which is dead. This dead growth is highly flammable. Now, unlike in the past, when forest fires do occur, they tend to be far more intense. They now spread more easily from one tree to the next due to them being closer to each other. Where small fires would break out and only burn small portions of the forest, we now have major fires that last for weeks, if not months.

Turns out, forest fires were good. It was the natural order in which Mother Nature controls her minions in the forests. Where once they would be burned and later repopulated with new growth in small sections. We now have mass genocide of these trees.

I have to admit, it's actually kind of fun to use human violence to describe our treatment of nature...

The point is, we can't fully understand what all our actions will have on our environment. If their isn't solid evidence to support action, no action should be taken. This global warming fear mongering is causing stupid and potentially harmful solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.


[/align]
[/align]
because there is very little similarity between strategic, partial pre-colonial deforestation by peoples who had at least a vestige of respect for the earth, and the debacle we see now by profit-hungry industries who don't give a fuck if the earth goes up in flames so long as they can get some kind of monopoly on the fire-hoses.
You act like we are vicious creatures who want nothing more than to destroy everything beautiful nature has to offer. You couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of us love nature and it's creatures as much as anybody. We simply want to harness everything natures has to offer in a peaceful and responsible way. Our making our mark on this planet is not exactly destroying it as you would like us to believe. Sure there are things we should fix, but global warming crazies are taking the focus away from actual problems. I don't see how this is hard to understand.